Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Intuit, Inc., the seller of TurboTax tax-preparation software, advertised its “Free Edition” as available at no cost for “simple tax returns.” However, the majority of taxpayers did not qualify due to various exclusions, and those individuals were prompted during the tax preparation process to upgrade to paid products. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an administrative complaint in 2022, alleging that these advertisements were deceptive under Section 5 of the FTC Act. After an initial federal court suit for a preliminary injunction was denied, the FTC pursued the matter through its internal adjudicative process instead.An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that Intuit’s advertisements were likely to mislead a significant minority of consumers. The FTC Commissioners affirmed this decision, issuing a broad cease-and-desist order that barred Intuit from advertising “any goods or services” as free unless it met stringent requirements. This order was not limited to tax-preparation products. Intuit petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for review, asserting, among other arguments, that the FTC’s adjudication of deceptive advertising claims through an ALJ, rather than an Article III court, was unconstitutional.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that deceptive advertising claims under Section 5 of the FTC Act are akin to traditional actions at law or equity, such as fraud and deceit, and thus involve private rights. According to recent Supreme Court precedent in SEC v. Jarkesy, such claims must be adjudicated in Article III courts, not by agency ALJs. The Fifth Circuit granted Intuit’s petition, vacated the FTC’s order, and remanded the case to the agency for further proceedings consistent with its holding. View "Intuit v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves parents of two children with disabilities, both of whom attend private religious schools in Massachusetts. State law entitles all students with disabilities, including those in private schools, to publicly funded special education services. However, a state regulation requires that while public school students can receive these services at their school of enrollment, private school students may only receive them at a public school or another public or neutral location. The parents, who observe Jewish law and prefer their children’s education be informed by Judaism, found it burdensome and disruptive to transport their children to and from different locations for services and chose to forgo the publicly funded services.The parents sued the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, individual board members, and the commissioner in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They alleged that the regulation violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with their fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Court held that while parents have a fundamental right to choose private schooling, the regulation does not restrict that right but merely defines the terms under which the state provides public benefits. The regulation does not ban or penalize private schooling or deprive meaningful access to it. Instead, it survives rational basis review because it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of providing special education services while complying with the Massachusetts Constitution’s prohibition on aiding private schools. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities claims. View "Hellman v. Department of Elementary and Secondary Education" on Justia Law

Defendants constructed an accessory dwelling unit on a property in Fair Oaks without obtaining the required building permit from the County of Sacramento. They initially applied for a permit, but their application was incomplete and they failed to make necessary corrections. Despite receiving multiple notices of violation and stop work orders from the County, defendants completed construction and leased the unit to a tenant without ever obtaining a final permit or a certificate of occupancy, nor did the County inspect the unit for code compliance.After defendants unsuccessfully appealed the first notice of violation to the County Building Board of Appeals and did not challenge subsequent notices, the County filed suit in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The County alleged that defendants’ conduct violated state and local building codes and constituted a public nuisance per se under local ordinances. Following a court trial, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the County on both causes of action and issued a permanent injunction, finding that building without a permit was a public nuisance per se as declared by County ordinance.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court rejected defendants’ arguments that the County lacked standing, that its nuisance ordinances conflicted with state law, and that the trial court misapplied the law in finding a nuisance per se. The appellate court held that the County had the authority and standing to enforce its building and nuisance codes, that its ordinances did not conflict with state law, and that construction without a permit constitutes a nuisance per se as expressly declared by County ordinance. The judgment was affirmed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the County. View "County of Sacramento v. NKS Real Estate Holdings" on Justia Law

A renewable energy developer was awarded a standard-offer contract in 2014 to build a solar facility in Bennington, Vermont, with a requirement to commission the project by 2016. The developer repeatedly sought and received extensions to this deadline, while simultaneously pursuing a certificate of public good (CPG), which is also required for construction. The Public Utility Commission (PUC) granted the CPG in 2018, but it was appealed, reversed, and ultimately denied on remand due to violations of local land conservation measures and adverse impacts on aesthetics. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the final CPG denial in 2023.While litigation over the CPG was ongoing, the developer continued to seek extensions of its standard-offer contract’s commissioning milestone. The fifth extension request, filed in 2021, asked for a deadline twelve months after the Supreme Court’s mandate in the CPG appeal. The hearing officer recommended granting it, but the PUC did not act on the request until 2024, by which time the developer’s CPG had been finally denied. The PUC dismissed the fifth extension request as moot, finding the contract had expired by its own terms. The PUC also denied the developer’s motion for reconsideration and a sixth extension request, on the same grounds.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the PUC’s actions with deference, upholding its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and its discretionary decisions unless there was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the PUC properly concluded the requested extension was moot, the contract was null and void by its terms, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Court also rejected arguments that the PUC’s actions were inconsistent with other cases or violated constitutional rights. The orders of the PUC were affirmed. View "In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC" on Justia Law

Three nonprofit organizations filed a nationwide class action against the United States, alleging that the federal judiciary overcharged the public for access to court records through the PACER system. They claimed the government used PACER fees not only to fund the system itself but also for unrelated expenses, contrary to the statutory limits set by the E-Government Act. The plaintiffs sought refunds for allegedly excessive fees collected between 2010 and 2018.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw extensive litigation, including class certification and an interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act and that the government had used PACER fees for unauthorized expenses. After remand, the parties reached a settlement totaling $125 million. The district court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also approved attorneys’ fees, administrative costs, and incentive awards to the class representatives. An objector, Eric Isaacson, challenged the district court’s jurisdiction, the fairness of the settlement, the attorneys’ fees, and the incentive awards.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act because each PACER transaction constituted a separate claim, none exceeding the $10,000 jurisdictional limit. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in approving the class settlement, the attorneys’ fees, or the incentive awards. The court also held that incentive awards are not categorically prohibited and are permissible if reasonable, joining the majority of federal circuits on this issue. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "NVLSP v. US " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs were injured when their car was struck by a vehicle driven by a deputy sheriff responding to an emergency call. The accident occurred at an intersection where the deputy, traveling westbound, proceeded against a red light while the plaintiffs, traveling southbound, had the green light. Although the deputy activated her emergency lights and slowed down, coming to a complete stop at least once and waiting for northbound traffic to yield, it was disputed whether she used her air horn or siren, and whether she looked for or could see southbound traffic due to possible obstructions. It was also undisputed that she did not notify dispatch as required by departmental policy.The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that the defendants had established entitlement to summary judgment by showing Deputy Fong had not acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others, and that the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The appellate court observed that the deputy took several safety precautions before entering the intersection. Two justices dissented, reasoning that a jury could find recklessness based on the evidence.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case. It held that, even when viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the evidence did not support a finding that the deputy acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others as required by Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104. The court emphasized that police vehicles are statutorily exempt from the requirement to use audible signals when exercising emergency driving privileges and that violations of internal policies exceeding statutory requirements do not establish liability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, dismissing the complaint. View "Granath v Monroe County" on Justia Law

Several individuals facing involuntary civil commitment under Washington’s Involuntary Treatment Act were entitled to appointed counsel. The King County Department of Public Defense (DPD) was responsible for providing this representation. During the spring and summer of 2024, DPD’s attorneys assigned to these cases reached their annual caseload limits, which are set by state standards. Despite having sufficient funding, DPD was unable to recruit additional attorneys and therefore notified the court when it could not assign counsel to new cases without exceeding the limits. When the court ordered DPD to provide counsel, DPD complied. The King County Executive was also ordered by the trial court to provide counsel, although in King County, only DPD has that authority.The King County Superior Court held an evidentiary hearing and subsequently issued orders requiring both DPD and the King County Executive to provide counsel to respondents. The court’s amended orders clarified that the decision of which attorney to appoint, and how to allocate caseloads, rested with DPD and the Executive, not with the court. Both DPD and the King County Executive sought review in the Washington Supreme Court. The Executive argued it should not be included in the orders due to the county’s charter, which provides DPD with exclusive authority and independence. DPD argued the orders effectively required it to violate mandatory caseload limits.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the caseload limits for public defenders in the Standards for Indigent Defense are mandatory and that courts lack authority to order attorneys or agencies to violate these limits. However, the court found that the trial court did not actually order DPD to violate the caseload limits, as it left the method of compliance to DPD. The court reversed the orders as they applied to the King County Executive but affirmed the orders requiring DPD to provide counsel. View "In re Det. of M.E." on Justia Law

Douglas Hodge and Timothy Shane, both parolees, challenged the procedures used by the Kentucky Parole Board to revoke parole. Hodge’s parole was revoked after he failed to report his new address and absconded, following difficulties with his living arrangements and subsequent lack of communication with his parole officer. Shane was revoked after being caught driving under the influence and violating a condition prohibiting alcohol use. In each case, the final evidentiary hearing was conducted by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), not the Parole Board itself, with both parolees represented by counsel and able to present evidence and witnesses.For Hodge, the Kenton Circuit Court dismissed his petition, finding the two-hearing process and the Board’s review complied with Morrissey v. Brewer, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding due process was satisfied and the Board did not abuse its discretion. Hodge sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Shane’s claim was denied by the Franklin Circuit Court, which concluded the Board could delegate the final hearing to an ALJ. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed, holding statutory and constitutional requirements mandate the Parole Board itself conduct final revocation hearings, but found Shane’s appeal moot due to his release, applying the public interest exception.The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed both cases to resolve conflicting appellate rulings. It held that the Kentucky Parole Board is authorized to delegate the conduct of final parole revocation hearings to ALJs, provided the Board retains the ultimate decision-making authority. However, the Court determined that due process is not fully satisfied unless parolees have an avenue, such as the ability to file exceptions to the ALJ’s findings, to present arguments directly to the Board. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in Hodge’s case and affirmed the appellate decision in Shane’s case. View "HODGE V. KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD" on Justia Law

An individual submitted a candidate filing form to appear on the ballot for Douglas County sheriff in the May 2026 primary election. Alongside his filing, he provided a letter from the director of the Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center certifying that he possessed an “inactive” Nebraska law enforcement officer certificate. His certificate had been active from 1984 to 2009 but was inactive at the time of filing. The Douglas County Republican Party objected to his candidacy, arguing that Nebraska law required a candidate to hold an “active” certificate. The objection was supported by a memorandum and legislative materials suggesting legislative intent to require active certification.The Douglas County election commissioner reviewed the objection and determined that the candidate did not meet the requirements to run for sheriff, based on the inactive status of his law enforcement certificate. The candidate then filed an emergency application for special proceedings with the Nebraska Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the commissioner’s decision and compel his placement on the ballot. The Republican Party intervened, asserting that legislative history and statutory context supported the requirement of an active certificate.The Supreme Court of Nebraska heard the case as a special, summary proceeding under state election law. The court held that the relevant statute required only that a candidate “possess a law enforcement officer certificate,” and made no distinction between active and inactive status. The court found the statutory text to be unambiguous and declined to consider legislative history or administrative regulations. Accordingly, the court concluded that possession of an inactive certificate satisfied the statutory qualifications for candidacy. The judgment ordered that the candidate’s name appear on the ballot for the sheriff’s office. View "Martinez v. Jensen" on Justia Law

A group of individuals who were victims of a Ponzi scheme obtained a default judgment for fraud against two corporations involved in the scheme. Unable to collect on this judgment, they each applied to the California Secretary of State for restitution from the Victims of Corporate Fraud Compensation Fund, which compensates victims when a corporation’s fraud leads to uncollectible judgments. The Secretary denied their claims, arguing primarily that the underlying fraud lawsuit had been filed after the statute of limitations had expired, making the judgment invalid for purposes of fund payment.The victims challenged the Secretary’s denial by filing a verified petition in the Superior Court of Orange County, seeking an order compelling payment from the fund. The Secretary maintained that the statute of limitations barred the underlying fraud claim, but the trial court disagreed. The court held that because the defendant corporations had defaulted and thus waived the statute of limitations defense in the original lawsuit, the Secretary could not raise that defense in the current proceeding. The trial court ordered payment from the fund to the victims in the amounts awarded in the underlying default judgment.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court clarified that under the statutory scheme, neither the Secretary nor the trial court may relitigate the merits of the underlying fraud claim, including whether it was time-barred. The court held that the trial court’s inquiry is limited to whether the claimant submitted a valid payment claim under the specific statutory requirements; it cannot revisit defenses such as the statute of limitations. However, the court found error in the trial court’s failure to cap payments at $50,000 per claimant as required by statute, and remanded the case for correction of this aspect of the order. View "Dion v. Weber" on Justia Law